Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-5zjcf Total loading time: 0.45 Render date: 2022-08-16T02:39:26.394Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Translating Modern Slavery into Management Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2020

Abstract

This article examines how ill-defined legal norms around modern slavery are being outlined in supply chain legislation and then interpreted by management professionals. Building on an infrastructural analysis of supply chain governance, I uncover the set of practices that underlie recent regulations around modern slavery. I track the implementation of these laws by following the “chain of translation,” whereby information is transformed from on-the-ground raw data, to quantitative metrics of modern slavery risks, and, finally, to polished corporate statements. This analysis focuses on the critical role being played by the Supplier Ethical Data Exchange (Sedex), which is a platform for sharing responsible sourcing data. While Sedex is not an auditor and is not governed by lawyers, it is nonetheless serving an important function in interpreting legal norms around modern slavery and facilitating the implementation of supply chain laws. Yet there are potential costs to its expansive role. Sedex is translating modern slavery into a management problem largely based on quantitative metrics such as indicators and risk scorecards. While Sedex provides limited opportunities for public participation, it needs to be more transparent with respect to the methodology behind its metrics and provide further opportunities for comment by parties underrepresented in its governance.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© 2020 American Bar Foundation

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The author would like to thank Einat Albin, Netta Barak-Corren, Matt Canfield, Melissa Durkee, Toby Goldbach, Moshe Hirsch, Sally Merry, Adam Saunders, Yuval Shany, Gavin Sullivan, Peer Zumbansen, and Law & Social Inquiry’s anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments on previous drafts. The author is also grateful to Raphael Deberdt and Isaac Mills for their useful research assistance. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the Infrastructures as Regulation Conference at New York University School of Law and the Faculty Seminar at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Faculty of Law.

References

Allain, Jean, ed. 2012. The Legal Understanding of Slavery: From the Historical to the Contemporary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Chris N., Hudson, Jesse H., Margherita, Michael A., and Culbreth, Madeline. 2018. “Corporate Compliance with the UK Modern Slavery Act, 2017/18.” Development International. https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/f0f801_7cc00bb9d48b42639427f55809bbd955.pdf.Google Scholar
Blair, Margaret M., Williams, Cynthia A., and Lin, Li-Wen. 2008. “The New Role for Assurance Services in Global Commerce.Journal of Corporations Law 33: 325–60.Google Scholar
Bunting, Annie, and Quirk, Joel, eds. 2017. Contemporary Slavery: Popular Rhetoric and Political Practice. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Business and Human Rights Resource Centre. 2016. “FTSE 100 at the Starting Line: An Analysis of Company Statements under the UK Modern Slavery Act.” https://www.business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/documents/FTSE%20100%20Modern%20Slavery%20Act.pdf.Google Scholar
Business and Human Rights Resource Centre. 2017. “First Year of FTSE 100 Reports under the UK Modern Slavery Act: Towards Elimination?” https://www.business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/FTSE%20100%20Report%20FINAL%20%28002%291Dec2017.pdf.Google Scholar
Business and Human Rights Resource Centre. 2018. “FTSE 100 and the Modern Slavery Act: From Disclosure to Action.” https://www.business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/FTSE%20100%20Briefing%202018.pdf.Google Scholar
Chuang, Janie A. 2014. “Exploitation Creep and the Unmaking of Human Trafficking Law.American Journal of International Law 108: 609–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chuang, Janie A. 2015a. “Giving as Governance? Philanthrocapitalism and Modern-Day Slavery Abolitionism.UCLA Law Review 62: 1516–56.Google Scholar
Chuang, Janie A. 2015b. “The Challenges and Perils of Reframing Trafficking as ‘Modern-Day Slavery.’Anti-Trafficking Review 5: 146–49.Google Scholar
Cohen, Julie E. 2017. “Law for the Platform Economy.UC Davis Law Review 51: 133204.Google Scholar
CORE. 2017. “Risk Averse? Company Reporting on Raw Material and Sector Specific Risks under the Transparency in Supply Chains Clause in the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015.” https://corporate-responsibility.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/171003_Risk-Averse-FINAL-1.pdf.Google Scholar
Craig, Gary. 2017. “The UK’s Modern Slavery Legislation: An Early Assessment of Progress.Social Inclusion 5, no. 2: 1627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crane, Andrew. 2017. “Modern Slavery from a Management Perspective: The Role of Industry Context and Organizational Capabilities.” In Contemporary Slavery: Popular Rhetoric and Political Practice, edited by Bunting, Annie and Quirk, Joel, 229–54. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Kevin E., et al., eds. 2012. Governance by Indicators: Global Power through Classification and Rankings. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Goede, Marieke. 2017. “The Chain of Security.Review of International Studies 44, no. 1: 119.Google Scholar
De Goede, Marieke, and Sullivan, Gavin. 2016. “The Politics of Security Lists.Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 34: 6788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dottridge, Mike. 2014. “Some Implications of Using the Term ‘Modern Slavery.’” Trafficking Research Project. https://thetraffickingresearchproject.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/some-implications-of-using-the-term-modern-slavery/.Google Scholar
Ergon Associates. 2017. “Modern Slavery Statements: One Year On.” https://ergonassociates.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/MSA_One_year_on_April_2017.pdf?x74739.Google Scholar
Ergon Associates. 2018. “Modern Slavery Reporting: Is there Evidence of Progress?” https://ergonassociates.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Ergon_Modern_Slavery_Progress_2018_resource.pdf?x74739.Google Scholar
Esbenshade, Jill. 2001. “The Social Accountability Contract: Private Monitoring from Los Angeles to the Global Apparel Industry.Labour Studies Journal 26, no. 1: 98120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1991. “Governmentality.” In The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, edited by Burchell, Graham, Gordon, Colin, and Miller, Peter, 87104. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goodale, Mark, and Merry, Sally Engle. 2007. The Practice of Human Rights: Tracking Law between the Global and the Local. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ILO (International Labour Organization). 2015. “Final Report on the ILO Expert Workshop on Measuring Modern Slavery.” https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/forced-labour/publications/WCMS_390001/lang--en/index.htm.Google Scholar
Johns, Fleur. 2017. “Data Detection and the Redistribution of the Sensible in International Law.American Journal of International Law 111, no. 1: 57103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinley, David, and Tadaki, Junko. 2004. “From Talk to Walk: The Emergence of Human Rights Responsibilities for Corporations at International Law.Virginia Journal of International Law 44, no. 4: 9311024.Google Scholar
Know the Chain. 2018. “Eradicating Forced Labor in Electronics: What Do Company Statements under the UK Modern Slavery Act Tell Us?” https://knowthechain.org/wp-content/uploads/KTC-ICT-MSA-Report_Final_Web.pdf.Google Scholar
Lake, Quintin, et al. 2015. “Corporate Approaches to Addressing Modern Slavery in Supply Chains: A Snapshot of Current Practice.” Ashridge Centre for Business and Sustainability at Hult International Business School. http://www.stopslaverynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/034.-Corporate-Approaches-to-Addressing-MS-in-SC.pdf.Google Scholar
Larkin, Brian. 2013. “The Politics and Poetics of Infrastructure.Annual Review of Anthropology 42: 327–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1999. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
LeBaron, Genevieve, and Lister, Jane. 2015. “Benchmarking Global Supply Chain: The Power of the Ethical Audit Regime.Review of International Studies 41, no. 5: 905–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeBaron, Genevieve, and Rühmkorf, Andreas. 2017a. “The Domestic Politics of Corporate Accountability Legislation: Struggles over the 2015 UK Modern Slavery Act.Socio-Economic Review 17, no. 3: 709–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeBaron, Genevieve, and Rühmkorf, Andreas 2017b. “Steering CSR through Home State Regulation: A Comparison of the Impact of the UK Bribery Act and Modern Slavery Act on Global Supply Chain Governance.Global Policy Journal 8, no. 3: 1528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeBaron, Genevieve, Lister, Jane, and Dauvergne, Peter. 2017a. “The New Gatekeeper: Ethical Audits as a Mechanism of Global Value Chain Governance.” In The Politics of Private Transnational Governance by Contract, edited by Claire Cutler, A. and Dietz, Thomas, 97114. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeBaron, Genevieve, Lister, Jane, and Dauvergne, Peter 2017b. “Governing Global Supply Chain Sustainability through the Ethical Audit Regime.Globalizations 14: 958–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lobel, Orly. 2016. “The Law of the Platform.Minnesota Law Review 101: 87166.Google Scholar
Locke, Richard. 2013. The Promise and Limits of Private Power: Promoting Labor Standards in a Global Economy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merry, Sally Engle. 2006. Human Rights and Gender Violence: Translating International Law into Local Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Merry, Sally Engle. 2016. The Seductions of Quantification: Measuring Human Rights, Gender Violence, and Sex Trafficking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merry, Sally Engle, Davis, Kevin E., and Kingsbury, Benedict, eds. 2015. The Quiet Power of Indicators: Measuring Governance, Corruption, and Rule of Law. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishinaga, Jesse, and Natour, Faris. 2019. “Technology Solutions for Advancing Human Rights in Global Supply Chains: A Landscape Assessment.Human Rights and Business Initiative 1, no. 1: n.p. https://escholarship.org/content/qt7pw4x5bq/qt7pw4x5bq.pdf.Google Scholar
Nolan, Justine, and Bott, Gregory. 2018. “‘Global Supply Chains and Human Rights: Spotlight on Forced Labour and Modern Slavery Practices.Australian Journal of Human Rights 24: 4469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connell Davidson, Julia. 2015. The Margins of Freedom: Modern Slavery. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Rourke, Dara. 2000. “Monitoring the Monitors: A Critique of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) Labor Monitoring.” https://nature.berkeley.edu/orourke/PDF/pwc.pdf.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, Dara 2003. “Outsourcing Regulation: Analyzing Nongovernmental Systems of Labor Standards and Monitoring.Policy Studies Journal 31: 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, Geoffrey G., van Alstyne, Marshall W., and Choudary, Sangeet Paul. 2016. Platform Revolution: How Networked Markets Are Transforming the Economy and How to Make Them Work for You. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Phillips, Nicola, LeBaron, Genevieve, and Wallin, Sara. 2018. Mapping and Measuring the Effectiveness of Labour-Related Disclosure Requirements for Global Supply Chains. Geneva: International Labor Organization.Google Scholar
Riles, Annelise. 2006. “Skepticism, Intimacy and the Ethnographic Subject: Human Rights as Legal Knowledge.American Anthropologist 108, no. 1: 5265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosga, Ann Jannette, and Satterthwaite, Margaret L.. 2009. “The Trust in Indicators: Measuring Human Rights.Berkeley Journal of International Law 27, no. 2: 253315.Google Scholar
Ruggie, John Gerard. 2007. “Business and Human Rights: The Evolving International Agenda.American Journal of International Law 101, no. 4: 819–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedex. 2016b. “Sedex Stakeholder Forum (SSF) Terms of Reference.” https://cdn.sedexglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/SSF-Terms-of-Reference-May-2016.pdf.Google Scholar
Sedex. 2017c. “Sedex Members Ethical Trade Audit (SMETA) Best Practice Guidance.” https://www.sedexglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Smeta-6.0-BPG.pdf.Google Scholar
Short, Jodi L., Toffel, Michael W., and Hugill, Andrea R.. 2016. “Monitoring Global Supply Chains.Strategic Management Journal 37, no. 9: 1878–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Star, Susan Leigh. 1999. “The Ethnography of Infrastructure.American Behavioral Scientist 43, no. 3: 377–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, Gavin. 2017. “‘Taking on the Technicalities’ of International Law: Practice, Description, Critique: A Response to Fleur Johns.AJIL Unbound 111: 181–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verité. 2016. “Research on Indicators of Forced Labor: Successes, Challenges, and Reflections on Future Engagement.” https://www.verite.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Lessons-Learned-During-Research-on-Indicators-of-Forced-Labor-in-the-Production-of-Goods-v2.pdf.Google Scholar
Dana v. Hershey Co. et al., 180 F. Supp. 3d 652 (ND Cal. 2016), appeal filed, No. 16-15789 (9th Cir. 2016).Google Scholar
Hodsdon v. Mars, Inc., 162 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (ND Cal. 2016), appeal filed, No. 16-15444 (9th Cir. 2016)Google Scholar
McCoy v. Nestle USA, Inc., 173 F. Supp. 3d 954 (ND Cal. 2016), appeal filed, No. 16-15794 (9th Cir. 2016).Google Scholar
Sud v. Costco Wholesale Corp. et al., No. 15-cv-03783-JSW, 2016 WL 192569, slip op. at *1 (ND Cal. 2016).Google Scholar
California Transparency in Supply Chains Act, 2010, Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.43(a)(1) (West 2012).Google Scholar
Convention Concerning Force or Compulsory Labour, 1930, 39 UNTS 55.Google Scholar
Convention Concerning Minimum Age for Admission to Employment, 1973, 1015 UNTS 297.Google Scholar
Convention Concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour, 1999, 2133 UNTS 161.Google Scholar
Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others, 1949, 96 UNTS 271.Google Scholar
Council Regulation (EU) 2017/821 Laying down Supply Chain Due Diligence Obligations for Union Importers of Tin, Tantalum and Tungsten, Their Ores, and Gold Originating from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas, 2017, OJ L 130/1.Google Scholar
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 2010, Pub. L. 111-203.Google Scholar
Modern Slavery Act 2015 (UK), c. 30.Google Scholar
Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Australia), No. 153.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, 2011, DAFFE/IME/WPG(2000)15/FINAL (Oct. 31, 2001).Google Scholar
Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, 2000, 40 ILM 335 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slavery Convention, 1926, 60 UNTS 254.Google Scholar
Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery, 1956, 226 UNTS 3.Google Scholar
Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, (4th ed. 2006), http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_ent/---multi/documents/publication/wcms_094386.pdf.Google Scholar
UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, 2011, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/17/31, 3.Google Scholar
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, 1155 UNTS 331.Google Scholar
Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, 2000, http://www.voluntaryprinciples.org/what-are-the-voluntary-principles/.Google Scholar

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Translating Modern Slavery into Management Practice
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Translating Modern Slavery into Management Practice
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Translating Modern Slavery into Management Practice
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *